Meyer

People v. Meyer

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 231·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 245·4 P.2d 958
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 7, 1931Docket No. 1165.California1,612 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

The defendant was found guilty of robbery and of a prior conviction of another felony. At the trial, he did not become a witness in his own behalf. It is now contended the evidence fails to identify him with the robbery or to support the judgment. It is also asserted the court erred in receiving in evidence three revolvers without sufficient proof connecting them with the crime with which the defendant is charged, and that the district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct by calling the jury’s attention to the defendant's appearance, and in asserting that officer’s individual belief in the guilt of the accused.

The story of this’ crime reads like a modern film melodrama. It was a professional performance. Frank Bechelli operated a roadhouse resort near Redding. About 12:30 in the morning of April 7, 1931, a lull occurred in the activity of business. It was a bright, moonlight night. The barroom was brilliantly lighted. It was deserted except for the presence of Bechelli, the proprietor, Sylve Aussem, his “housekeeper”, and Jim Bell, a faithful adherent of the joint. Bechelli was decorated with a dazzling $450 diamond ring. Sylve also wore a valuable diamond ring and a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.